LexSTATE OF M.P. versus ABDUL KADIR & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B •, c [2009] 2 S.C.R. 430 STATE OF M.P. V. ABDUL KADIR & ANR. Criminal Appeal No.1289 of 2002 FEBRUARY 13, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASf:>..YAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] . Madhya Pradesh Prisoners (Release on Probation) Act, 1954 -Release on probation - Entitlement to - Murder - Life convict - High Court did not disc.uss the order 9f Probation Board and the reasons given by it for rejecting recommendation for his release on probation - Held : High · Court did not consider the issues in the proper perspective - Directed High Court to re hear the matter, keeping in view the D . parameters indicated by this Court in Arvind Yadav's case. Respondent is a life convict. The District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police recommended his re- lease. on probation. But the Probation Board did not ac- E cept the recommendations. The State Government ac- cepted the recommendations of the Probation Board. Respondent filed writ petition seeking release under the provisions ·of the Madhya Pradesh Prisoners (Release on Probation) Act, 1954 and the Rules made thereunder. A Single Judge of the High Court held that Respondent was F · entitled to release on probation. The order was upheld by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court G HELD: Neither the Single Judge nor the Division H Bench of the High Court discussed the reasons indicated -• by the Probation Board. The opinion of the Board shows that taking into account the gruesome nature of the 430 --:. .. · STATE OF M.P. V. ABDUL KADIR & ANR. 431 murder and the background in which the murder was A committed, the recommendations were not accepted. The State Government, Jail Department accepted the recommendations of the Probation Board. The Division Bench erroneously observed that the Single Judge had • set aside the order of the Probation Board. In fact, there B I is no such finding or conclusion recorded by Single Judge. Since the High Court has not considered the 'I issues in the proper perspective, it is directed to re hear .. the LPA on condonation of delay, keeping in view. the parameters indicated by this court in Arvind Yadav's case. c [Paras 5, 6] [432-F, G; 435-C, D] Arvind Yadav v. Ramesh Kumar (2003) 6 SCC 144 - relied on. Case Law Reference .'> (2003) s sec 144 relied on Para 5 D ~ CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal ---\ Appeal No. 1289 of 2002 i From the final Judgement and Order dated 5.12.2001 of the High Court of Madhy Pradesh, Indore Bench in Letters Patent E Appeal No. 412 of 2001. ,,. Vibha Datta Makhija, for the Appellant. S. Janani, for the Respondent. The Judgement of the Court was delivered by F DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. ~ 1. The State of Madhya Pradesh is in appeal against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the State. In the G --<' Letters Patent Appeal challenge was to the order dated 30.8.2001 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 777 of 2001. Respondent- a life convict had filed the Writ Petition stating that he is entitled to be released under the provision of the Madhya Pradesh Prisoners (Release on H 432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R. A Probation) Act, 1954 and the Rules made thereunder. Plea in ~ B the writ petition was that his case had been recommended by the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police but the Probation Board in its meeting held at 24.1.2001 did not recommend his case for release on probation. 2. Learned Single Judge by a practically non-reasoned o·rder held that in view of the recommendation of the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police and the Probation Officer, the writ petitioner was entitled to be release on probation. This order was challenged before the Division Bench in a Letters C Patent Appeal. The Division Bench held that there was no substance in the appeal and also noted that the appeal was barred by 32 days, and, therefore, dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that neither D learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench discussed the order of the Probation Board and the reasons given by it for rejecting the recommendation for release on probation. 4. There is no appearance of the respondent in spite of E service of notice. 5. It is to be noted that neither the learned Single Judge
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.